Theorizing the Addressive Audience in Children’s Digital Video Production

Written Communication Jan 2020 OA PDF

Theorizing the Addressive Audience in Children’s Digital Video Production

Jessica Zacher Pandya California State University, Long Beach ; David E. Low California State University, Fresno

Abstract

In this article, we examine how children ages 8 to 10 characterized the audiences of digital videos they made in school. Children’s perceptions of their viewers reflected, and in many cases complicated, current theorizing about the vast potential audiences of digital texts. Our analysis of videos and interview data surfaces several findings pertaining to how children characterized their audiences. Children discussed their desire to inform viewers, their deliberate choices about language use vis-à-vis their viewers, ways they predicted and steered audience emotions, and the affective dimensions of sharing one’s video with different audiences. These findings suggest that educators and researchers ought to foreground issues of addressivity when theorizing the question of audience for children’s digital products. They also raise questions concerning authentic audience in an age of increasing concern about children’s safety and security in online worlds.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2020-01-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088319880509
Open Access: OA PDF Bronze
Topics: multilingual writers affect and writing

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (2)

Smagorinsky (2008)

The Method Section as Conceptual Epicenter in Constructing Social Science Resea…

Written Communication
DYSON (1992)

The Case of the Singing Scientist

Written Communication

Also cites 41 works outside this index ↓

10.1177/1086296X15618478

↗
Bedard C. (2011)

10.58680/la201118220

Language Arts ↗
10.1002/jaal.357

↗
10.1080/09502386.2011.600532

↗
10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014035

↗
10.1080/1358165010260303

↗
10.1080/00131911.2013.768959

↗
10.3102/0013189X032001009

↗
Comber B. (2013)

10.58680/la201323573

Language Arts ↗
10.1177/0163443717717632

↗
10.3102/0013189X032001005

↗
10.2307/358093

↗
10.2307/377789

↗
10.4135/9781483398655

↗
10.4135/9781506335445

↗
10.3102/0091732X10383211

↗
10.2307/4128844

↗
10.1598/JAAL.48.6.4

↗
10.1080/09500780308666848

↗
10.1177/0267323104040695

↗
10.1080/01411920701657033

↗
10.1080/00461520.2010.493470

↗
10.1111/lit.12061

↗
10.1016/j.asw.2016.06.005

↗
10.1080/00405841.2017.1390336

↗
10.2307/461344

↗
10.4324/9781315102672

↗
Pandya J. Z. (2015)

10.1177/016146811511700707

Teachers College Record ↗
10.2307/357917

↗
10.2307/357586

↗
10.1080/1554480X.2018.1471999

↗
Schmier S. A. (2018)

10.1007/BF03652006

Australian Journal of Language and Literacy ↗
10.3102/0091732X030001279

↗
Solomon M. J. (2012)

10.58680/tp201221324

Talking Points ↗
Stornaiuolo A. (2018)

10.1177/016146811812000804

Teachers College Record ↗
10.20360/G2S59R

↗
10.4135/9781526402196

↗
10.4324/9781315642277

↗
10.1016/B978-0-12-723250-8.50016-3

↗
10.1177/0895904804266469

↗
10.4135/9781446288238.n2

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 8 View in citation network →